Into the Renaissance: Protestantism

Protestantism is in the list of religions in this scenario, but how does it come out?

It's a surprise

??????
Is it acivated after a in the end? I have played for atleast 100 turns and no protestantism so far...

Cyon said:

??????
Is it acivated after a in the end? I have played for atleast 100 turns and no protestantism so far...

Click to expand...

keep playing, it'll come.

The 95 Thesis gets nailed to the door of Wittenburg Catherdral. - 31st October 1517

From the scenario's civilopedia:

I just wish that there was a smaller map to play the scenario on, it's just too huge to have any actual gameplay and reach the other side of the map...

There's no actual thread on the scenario, is there?

I started it up as the Almohads, was dissapointed that I would most probably not interact with anyone for the next 50 turns and started a new game as the French... After having played for about a bit more than after the first HRE election, (55 turns or so), I am really really dissapointed. My main criticisms:

• No small(er) map option
• no set up empires, you need a few turns to found your cities and get to know the map before you can do anything (attack the neighbours, spread religion, etc. ...)
• large empty rooms, see for example the Iberian Peninsula where no civs compete, Spain's game would mainly consist of rexing the peninsula and building units for the new world victory points
• But for example also the room between the German City States and Russia seems awfully empty. As do maybe the South Balkans, but I never got a change to see that part of the map anyways... If you have a huge map, you need somethin there, not?
• no GERMANY! Which means that you get a huge Austria and huge Netherlands, when these were actually rather boxed in.
• The scenario starts with the Crusades, but there's no way you are going to conquer Jerusalem as one of the European civs, too far away simply.
• As the civs are so far apart, there's actually not much I can do to stop another civ from winning but concentrating on my own growth?

It just seems poorly designed (as do the other scenarios), large maps with large spaces of nothingness are bad, they just make the turns take longer to compute. Better to shift the civs around a bit then, even if it'd be ahistorical.

Please feel free to rip apart my arguments, I haven't played it to the end and should probably have a look at it again...

In the renaissance, there was no Germany (in a sense) and Austria was more or less pulling the strings. Also, the Netherlands wasn't boxed in at that time, but its focus lay overseas.

Other than that, I can't really comment on your post as I haven't tried the scenario yet.

no GERMANY!

Click to expand...

It would be very strange if there were, a unified German empire did not exist until 1871. There should be more German city-states though. If they needed to make scenario-specific city-states, they should have done so. Or they could have made the Holy Roman Empire a playable option for the scenario.

But other than that I agree with all of these criticisms. I was excited to try this map, as this is an interesting time in history that could be made even more so by the religion mechanic, but it's ultimately just a lot of building. 200 turns is not enough time to do anything really on a map that large. When I saw the 200 turn counter I was thoroughly disappointed, especially considering you only start with one freaking city! Would it be too much to ask that the empires at least start pre-fabricated so you can concentrate on the unique aspects of the scenario, not the aspects (founding cities, building them up) we concentrate on in EVERY OTHER GAME of CiV we play?

Thumbs very down, my first actual disappointment with this expansion. Seriously, there are fan-made scenarios that are MUCH better designed, which is shameful tbh.

There's no "Holy Roman Empire" in the game, simply because you can be elected as the Holy Roman Emperor. That wouldn't make sense with the HRE in the game.

And you have to keep in mind that it's actually suited as "Renaissance" scenario. That being said, having the Netherlands and Austria in the HRE totally makes sense as well.

You only start so early in the Middle Ages already because of the technology tree and to keep the scaling nice.

The only thing I really didn't like was that you were able to get into the Industrial Era. Having WW2-Jeep-Great Generals 1500ish wasn't so cool.

They basically needed Germany posing as Prussia for the Northern part of the territories of the Holy Roman Empire to represent the Brandenberg / Polish dynasties that controlled that part. Austria to the south, Berlin to the North, and a ton of contested city-states running in between from Milan and Venice up into central Europe.

- Marty Lund

Does Prussia spawn later in the scenario?

And the Holy Roman Empire is Germany, it's as simple as that. So you could have had that in. The Holy Roman Emperor Election in the game doesn't really work since everyone votes in it... The Habsburgs need someone to compete against, not? IF you have the whole of Germany as City States, you need some sort of structure in there...

The scenario would have also been to early for Prussia, but I also don't get why they made it start so early.... Otherwise what mlund depicts just above would work as a scenario.

Again, the scenario design just seems off. You either make a confined boxed in scenario with a small map, fast gameplay and a few predetermined "battles" (actual military or over religion, city states, etc.). Then you can add in highly specifized systems like a HRE election that takes into account only certain city states (the Seven Kurfürsten). In the Steampunk scenario they did something similar with the titles you can get. Simple, clear, effective. On the other hand, the Into the Rennaissance is just a copy of the base game.

Agreed. I'm surprised, myself. I heard Into the Renaissance was the big centerpiece scenario, but I didn't find it very unique or fun.

mitsho said:

I just wish that there was a smaller map to play the scenario on, it's just too huge to have any actual gameplay and reach the other side of the map...

There's no actual thread on the scenario, is there?

Click to expand...

Yes, the map is just MURDER. Two reasons:

1. With such a large map (and many civs) it slows my computer to a crawl! Then again, it might have to do with the latest patch, which has caused lots of people's games to play a lot more slowly. I just won decisively with the Ottomans (Deity victory where I tripled the score of my second place challenger). However, playing those 200 turns was torture. I'm not looking forward to doing it again for the achievements (Celts/Almohads/Russia). Kind of remains me of the pain of the Korea scenario.

In addition, with so many city states and so much focus on city state influence (due to Holy Roman Emperor elections), it was ridiculous the sheer number of city state notifications that occurred every turn. Of course everyone was constantly at war with each other (largely due to my instigation) but still....

2. Even in the end, I still had never met the Celts. It's really hard to meet certain civs, especially due to geographic boundaries. Spain or the Almohads usually control Gibralter and to get from England/Celtia (ha ha) to the Mediterranean you also have to get through French territory as well. Going the land route would be even worse! Considering how hostile players tend to be, getting Open Borders can be hard so you might not ever meet some of the civs.

I started it up as the Almohads, was dissapointed that I would most probably not interact with anyone for the next 50 turns and started a new game as the French... After having played for about a bit more than after the first HRE election, (55 turns or so), I am really really dissapointed.p.

Click to expand...

With different points awarded, I feel like certain civs have different viable victory options.

Europe is going to be more focused on the Holy Roman Emperor elections. Considering the proximity of so many city states and the favorable relations to the other major civs, it's really challenging for the Orthodox or Muslims to win (though I did win the final two HRE elections as the Ottomans. Go figure!).

Orthodox and the Muslim civs can get a lot of points by conquering cities owned by other religions. European civs can fight each other, but you don't gain much from taking each other's cities. If you are Spain, Austria, maybe Sweden you can expand toward the heathens and then conquer them. But it's really hard for the English (for example) to gain conquering points. A important note is that once Protestantism is founded, there is a prime opportunity for point gaining.

Due to geography and the difficulty of getting Open Borders, sending Caravels west is going to be really difficult for the Ottomans, Byzantines, Askia, and Russians. You really need to pass through other's territories to reach the western edge.

So I feel like different civs will obviously be playing different aspects of the scenario.

My main criticisms:

• No small(er) map option

Click to expand...

• 
  Agreed.
  

  [*]no set up empires, you need a few turns to found your cities and get to know the map before you can do anything (attack the neighbours, spread religion, etc. ...)

  Click to expand...

  I kind of like the option of founding your own empire. Of course, the AI city spams like there's no tomorrow....
  
  

  [*]large empty rooms, see for example the Iberian Peninsula where no civs compete, Spain's game would mainly consist of rexing the peninsula and building units for the new world victory points
  
  [*]But for example also the room between the German City States and Russia seems awfully empty. As do maybe the South Balkans, but I never got a change to see that part of the map anyways... If you have a huge map, you need somethin there, not?

  Click to expand...

  There are large expanses of territory (Iberia, Greece, middle of North Africa, areas around Russia) but that's okay.
  
  In the case of Iberia, IMHO the Almohads should really be expanding there to compete with the Spainiards.
  
  

  [*]no GERMANY! Which means that you get a huge Austria and huge Netherlands, when these were actually rather boxed in.

  Click to expand...

  Austria gets huge, but that's largely due to marriages.
  
  In my game, they married into:
  
  Tunis (I conquered it)
  Valetta (I conquered it)
  Vatican City (I conquered it)
  Genoa (I conquered it)
  Venice (I conquered it)
  Polatsk
  Augsberg
  Prague (I conquered it)
  and another 3 or 4
  
  It was ridiculous seeing the number of handsome princes and beautiful princesses that Maria Theresa kept churning out! (Literally at least a dozen!).
  
  Course they never married into Mecca (who they were allied with most of the game). That would have been hilarious!
  
  

  [*]The scenario starts with the Crusades, but there's no way you are going to conquer Jerusalem as one of the European civs, too far away simply.

  Click to expand...

  Well, there is the one achievement for taking Jerusalem with England. I did that one but was just playing to get the achievement (not win).
  
  Reminds me of the "Fall of Rome" scenario where you have to take one of the Persian cities with the Celts. Took most of the turns of the game just to get my army there. But I LOVED the name of the achievement "I missed that day in history class." LOL.
  
  

  As the civs are so far apart, there's actually not much I can do to stop another civ from winning but concentrating on my own growth?

  Click to expand...

  I don't know about that.
  
  I think you can get buku points from the scenario. The normal points for empire growth and wonder building really pale in comparison.
  
  Early on, Saladin gave me competition in terms of points but he couldn't really conquer anyone worth points, while I trashed the Byzantines and the Austrians. By the end (I had 9000+, France and Saladin had 3000+), France was in second place but he had switched religions (so got some points for conquering) and he sent the only Caravel the entire game (500 points).
  
  Even the HRE election isn't worth that much (250). You can get a lot more from conquering!!!
  
  I don't feel the computer understands the intricacies of the point system, so you the human should be able to outsmart it!

It was ridiculous seeing the number of handsome princes and beautiful princesses that Maria Theresa kept churning out! (Literally at least a dozen!).

Click to expand...

She had sixteen children in real life so that works out lol.

Marie Antoinette was number fifteen I believe.

I have been trying to beat this scenario on King level and giving up in the home stretch when it becomes impossible to match opponent scores.

As Byzantines I was unable to push my army to Jerusalem, so I have no idea how anyone further out in Europe does it... the Ottomans seem able to summon infinite units by land and sea.

As Saladin it was easy to conquer Jerusalem and Mecca and I thought that would be enough doing that early but an endless fight with the Ottomans kept us from being able to get any victory points fighting anyone from a different religion.

With 200 turns time limit I felt like everyone else was starting too far from the Holy Land. I haven't played out as Maria Theresa, who I expect has a shot at being one of the 'easier' civs.

It's also a bit frustrating to use the old social policy tree... I would love to hear what the best combo of policies to grab in the first turns is for example. I've tried grabbing the second settler immediately thru liberty and I've tried making several policy trees open to take from as needed but there must be a way to get culture churning fast enough to get all the best advantages.

If you aren't Catholic what do you bother with the religion spending beyond the culture buildings? I had one game as the Byzantines where I realized it made sense to capture enemy missionaries and convert 'friendly religion' cities before you capture them.

I wish this scenario had gotten some polish...

Sultan Bhargash said:

As Byzantines I was unable to push my army to Jerusalem, so I have no idea how anyone further out in Europe does it... the Ottomans seem able to summon infinite units by land and sea.

It's also a bit frustrating to use the old social policy tree... I would love to hear what the best combo of policies to grab in the first turns is for example. I've tried grabbing the second settler immediately thru liberty and I've tried making several policy trees open to take from as needed but there must be a way to get culture churning fast enough to get all the best advantages.

Click to expand...

The only real viable means for fast conquest is a frigate rush. This is actually quite easy with Byzantium as you'll start with the dromon which means you get a headstart with experience so once you get to 60exp you can promote your dromon to extra range - then you'll be able to attack cities outside of their range.
Other civs have to wait until they get the Galleas before they can get a ranged naval unit. So build some dromons early and start working on their exp. and beeline towards Frigates.

Ranged naval units also get much more powerful promotions against land units so if you play Byzantium you should aim to dominate the sea especially with all that coastline around you.

For social policies usually Liberty is the best but it's also necessary to take the Tradition opener at some point - just to get the bonus to border growth. The AI loves to spam cities in this scenario and you'll want to claim tiles as fast as you can.
Alternatively if you're playing a coastal civ like Byzantium you can open in the left side of Commerce to get the +3 hammers per city and a free Great Admiral to explore early.


But I agree that it's a pretty lacklustre scenario - which is a shame because the devs obviously put a fair amount of work into it
Unfortunately as already stated it suffers from
-oversized map
-poor AI
-too many citystates
-too much empty space on the map; where is the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Bulgaria.... why is Greece uninhabited?